SCISSION provides progressive news and analysis from the breaking point of Capital.
SCISSION represents an autonomist Marxist viewpoint.
The struggle against white skin privilege and white supremacy is key.
---
"You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness. In this case, it comes from nonconformity, the courage to turn your back on the old formulas, the courage to invent the future.”
FIGHT WHITE SUPREMACY, SAVE THE EARTH

Lots of greyhound folks talk about the evils of racing. These people took some real action. My greyhound Whitney says, "right on."

"While thousands of people were beside themselves enjoying the World Cup and other idiocies, we with conviction and hatred in our hearts decided to carry out an attack against those responsible for exploitation in all its forms. With thousands of reasons for wanting to destroy the system imposed at the expense of human and animal suffering, around 10pm yesterday, June 10th, we started the fire that destroyed the cells of the Renca race track where greyhounds are imprisoned and forced to run so that the unscrupulous can enjoy themselves and place their dirty bets. This act is in revenge for all our brothers and sisters who are exploited and imprisoned throughout the world, and it is a threat to the powerful, including the mayor of this poor community.

These practices must stop because, with all the hatred in the world, very soon there will be even more of us; without fear we will enter into their lives and destroy their tranquility, to put an end to their damned social peace, because we are antiauthoritarians who do not work for their businesses, we do not buy their laws nor do we 'validate' their public transport system, we do not believe their lies and we do not celebrate their 'patriotic football' festivals.

FIRE TO ALL THE PLACES OF EXPLOITATION, SUCH AS WORK AND PRISONS.
FIRE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL"

And now British Armed Forces Day is just around the corner. Time to celebrate hundreds of years of imperialist and colonialist oppression.

Some in Belfast are saying, "We don't think so."

éirígí’s rúnaí ginearálta Breandán Mac Cionnaith has announced that the party intends to actively oppose the marking of the British government’s Armed Forces Day in the Six Counties.

Scheduled for June 26, the triumphalist occasion will include the raising of a British Armed Forces flag at Belfast City Hall. éirígí will be holding a demonstration at Belfast City Hall on the same date.

Mac Cionnaith said: “It is completely unacceptable that the British government and its supporters in Ireland intend to mark Armed Forces Day in the Six Counties. People in the Six Counties and across Ireland have suffered grievously due to the involvement of the British army and other British state agencies in this country.

“At a time when we are awaiting the publication of the Saville Report into the Bloody Sunday massacre, it is even more obscene that the British army’s cheerleaders intend to celebrate its history of mass murder.”

Mac Cionnaith continued: “As was the case last year, éirígí will be actively opposing the celebration of British Armed Forces Day in occupied Ireland.

“The British government’s war machine remains active in Ireland and lethal in Afghanistan – it is the responsibility of all republicans and socialists to battle against it at every turn.

“We call on all those who oppose the British occupation and imperialism in general to join éirígí in protest at Belfast City Hall on June 26.”

éirígí’s demonstration against British Armed Forces Day will commence at 12pm at Belfast City Hall on Saturday, June 26.

Charles Knipp is a self-described forty-five-year-old, fat, gay white man who believes he's on a mission from God. A mission that involves mimicking Black women as his alter ego character Shirley Q. Liquor. The character is favorite among his core audience whom Knipp describes as being “gay men, their moms, and rednecks.”

Swell.

In San Francisco Bay area, folks are saying keep this racist drag queen out of our town.

African Americans throughout the Bay Area are demanding that the Russian River Resort cancel tonight's scheduled appearance of Shirley Q. Liquor, a racist stereotypical Blackface character played by Charles Knipp, a white Mississippi drag queen. The character Shirley Q. Liquor is an overweight, illiterate, alcoholic, unmarried Black woman with 19 children who speaks in broken, ungrammatical English. Supporters such as Black drag queen RuPaul say Knipp has a First Amendment right to perform his act, and the Shirley Q. Liquor character is just an extension of the Gay drag queen diva tradition of imitating and making fun of women. Opponents, however, call the Shirley Q. Liquor character racist, divisive and nothing more than a 21st century minstrel show.

If you have never seen or hear of Shirley Q. Liquor, you can watch a clip here. Here are a few examples of some of Shirley Q. Liquor's tamer quotes:

"I'm gonna burn me up some chitlins and put some ketchup on there and aks Jesus to forgive my sins." Shirley also shops at "Kmark," eats "Egg McMuffmans," visits her "gynechiatrist" and just loves "homosexicals."

"On the fifth day of Kwanzaa, my check came in the mail/AFDC!/Thank you, lawd!/Come on, kids/Let's go to the store/For some collard greens, ham hocks and cheese!"

"Baby, we was extremely povertied this week. My check had not came on time. Oooh, we was stretchin' it, honey. I aks them to keep my power on. I said, 'A woman have got to have some fans runnin' down here in this heat.' "

Knipp has been performing the Shirley Q. Liquor character for nearly 10 years. When the Shirley Q. Liquor character first appeared on the scene in the South, Knipp's performance sparked protests that prompted mainstream gay organizations like GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) to denounce Knipp's performance. A GLAAD statement described Knipp's character as "one that perpetuates ugly racial stereotypes that are offensive, hurtful and simply unacceptable."

Such criticism forced Knipp to take his performances underground where they were promoted clandestinely by word of mouth. Knipp's shows this weekend at the Russian River Resort are not only being widely publicized on the Resort's web site, it's also being promoted as part of the Resort's series of benefits for Hurricane Katrina victims, many of whom are African American. Adding insult to injury for African Americans is that Knipp's performance is occurring on Juneteenth weekend, the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery for African Americans in the United States.

Other mainstream gay leaders and organizations have similarly denounced Knipp, but critics say the apparent lack of outrage of Knipp's appearance at the Russian River Resort represents a double standard that condones racist performances. Knipp’s critics believe there is currently a "wink and nod" attitude toward Knipp's racist performance in that while gay leaders may do the politically correct thing and publicly denounce Shirley Q. Liquor, gay leaders and organizations are not taking the extra step of boycotting clubs, bars and festivals that host Shirley Q. Liquor performances.

Blacks in both the straight and gay community say the nationwide protests against reggae stars Buju Banton and Capleton for anti-gay lyrics are examples of the power of Gay community organizing. Both artists were forced to cancel Bay Area concerts, nationwide tours and appearances at major festivals after GLAAD and other organizations threatened to set up picket lines outside of clubs like Slim's in San Francisco, the House of Blues in Los Angeles and festivals like the Ragga Muffin festival and the Miami Reggae Festival.

Blacks who are active in both the Black and Gay community note that no Gay club in the country would risk protests, picket lines and boycotts if the level of protests against Shirley Q. Liquor matched the nationwide outrage against Buju Banton, Capleton and actor Eddie Murphy, who endured years of protests for making remarks offensive to Gays early in Murphy's career.

Black activists like Jasmyne Cannick, who has produced one of the few anti-Shirley Q. Liquor websites, says on her website that white gay activists are quick to denounce blacks who demean gays -- but turn a blind eye when whites like Knipp do the same thing.

“The hypocrisy is sickening," Cannick says on her blog. "Isaiah Washington was unable to escape the wrath of Gay America, but Charles Knipp, a White Gay man, can perform a blackface minstrel and be rewarded by Gay Americans to the tune of $90k annually. Someone has some explaining to do. This has gone on for far too long under the radar.”

Gay activists say that relations between Blacks and the mostly White Gay community have improved greatly since the days that Bay Area Black Gays felt so excluded from the San Francisco Gay Pride Festival that they created an Afro-Centric Pride festival in Oakland, and when Black Gays accused several Castro Street Bars of discrimination against Blacks and women. The executive director of this year's Gay Pride Festival is an African American woman and Pride organizers say that this year's festival will be the most diverse ever.

Black Gay activists say one big reason the Prop 8 measure banning Gay marriage won two years ago was a lack of education and outreach among African Americans. Many Black voters polled after the November 2008 election said they were misled by Black ministers and other community leaders who were paid by Prop 8 organizers, and would have probably voted against Prop 8 if there had been better outreach to African Americans by the Gay community; outreach that includes education on eradicating stereotypes about both Blacks and Gays.

Activists say Shirley Q. Liquor's performance at the Russian River Resort this weekend will send a message to African Americans that there is hell to pay if blacks make disparaging remarks against Gays, but it's fun and games and a good time to be had by all when White Gays perform materials considered racist by African Americans. Leaders in both the African American and Gay communities are concerned that if Shirley Q. Liquor’s performance goes off unchallenged, the message, and image of Shirley Q. Liquor will reverberate in the minds of African Americans who may be asked in the future to support pro-Gay legislation or ballot measures.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Beyond Chron readers can call the Russian River Resort at (707) 869-0691 and demand that they cancel Shirley Q. Liquor's performance.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Shouting curses, ethnic slurs, and calling other Israeli Jews Nazis, a group of Haredi Jews made fools of themselves in Jaffa today. The demonstrators shouted toward Commander Yoram Ohayon, who headed the police force, "Nazi, you look like (Adolf) Eichmann. You will pay for this."

Hundreds of haredim have been gathering to protest against excavation works in the town's Andromeda Hill on a daily basis in recent weeks. The haradim claim the site contains ancient graves.

About 1,000 ultra-Orthodox protesters demonstrated yesterday morning in Jaffa to protest archaeological work in an area they believe contains Jewish graves. Five police officers were hurt in clashes with protesters, with one hospitalized with light injuries. A number of protesters were also hurt. Fifteen demonstrators were detained yesterday, nine of whom are being held for an extension of their remand.

The protesters first arrived at around 11 A.M. at the corner of Yefet and Louis Pasteur Streets in the Andromeda Hill neighborhood. An hour later they were joined by Rabbi Yitzhak Tuvia Weiss - the leader of the anti-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox Eda Haredit sect - who had been allowed to access the site by car even though the area had been closed to traffic.

Accompanied by his entourage, Weiss exited his car and began leading mass prayers among the assembled demonstrators. "We curse the health, family and livelihood of all those who had a hand in the desecration of these graves!" yelled one protester. "All those involved in the defilement of this grave site and earth will pay with their lives - these curses have proven themselves in the past."

After the prayer, protesters headed toward the building site and tried to breach police roadblocks set up there. Police were instructed to employ force to move the crowd back to Yefet Street, a main artery in Jaffa.

Once there, several demonstrators hurled stones, bottles and other objects at police officers. Fearing the rally was getting out of control, police deployed special forces officers as well as a helicopter. Demonstrators responded by denigrating the officers as "criminals" and "Nazis," and several officers of Ethiopian descent were subjected to racial epithets.

At that point, officers sought to push the protest toward a nearby public park, during the course of which several protesters sustained light injuries.

After police received orders to disperse the rally entirely, demonstrators set trash bins on fire and continued hurling rocks. Two photographers were injured by stones, with one of them bleeding heavily from the head.

"This entire project is linked to wealth and power," said Erla Yekter, one of the protest organizers. "These people have come here to pray and protest. If there is any violence, it's only on the part of the police, not the protesters. People paid for their grave plots, and now they're building on top of them and selling the land that was bought [by others]."

The demonstrators arrived on 17 buses, most of them from Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh.

Yesterday the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that the work at Andromeda Hill is nearing completion, and police expressed hope that the protests would soon end as well.

Still, Tel Aviv police said they were preparing for the possibility that the demonstrations could resume today.

President Obama delivered his first speech from the Oval Office last night and I have to admit it was so dull I don't remember any of it. It's true I was getting dinner together and used the speech mostly as background. Wasn't this guy supposed toe dynamic or something. Anyway these folks were listening and here are their thoughts. Like you, I'll read them later.

President Obama’s Oval Office speech Tuesday night on the Gulf oil disaster was a cowardly exercise in evasion and cover-up that could have been written by the publicity department of BP.

The 18-minute speech, coming on the 57th day of the worst environmental catastrophe in US history, provided no concrete assessment of the causes of the oil spill or the dimensions of the crisis—in terms of damage either to the ecosystem or the economy.
The speech represented a complete capitulation to BP and corporate power. Anyone who expected that Obama would use the occasion to provide the American people with an honest accounting of the disaster and the culpability of BP had to be sorely disappointed.
Given only hours before a scheduled White House meeting with top BP executives, the speech made absolutely clear that the Obama administration takes its marching orders from the corporate-financial oligarchy. In his response to the Gulf disaster, Obama has adopted the same approach as he did to the criminal actions of Wall Street that threw the US and the world into the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. No one is to be held accountable and nothing is to be done that challenges the basic interests of the financial aristocracy.
In his speech, Obama made no clear condemnation of BP’s actions, either before or after the April 20 blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that took the lives of 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.
He made no mention of the latest shocking revelations of BP’s systematic violations of safety procedures in the run-up to the explosion that sank the rig—violations that were part of the company’s policy of cutting corners in order to save time and money and boost profits.
He did not even note the new estimates released that day by government scientists placing the oil flow rate at 35,000 to 60,000 gallons a day—the latest evidence of BP’s consistent policy of lying about the crisis.
Nor was there any mention of a criminal investigation into BP—something that was floated two weeks ago by the administration and has since been dropped.
Obama devoted exactly four short sentences and less than a minute to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, omitting anything that could be damaging to BP. For example, he failed to note that the company’s blowout preventer, supposedly the failsafe barrier against an oil gusher, failed to operate.
“Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth,” he continued, “stopping it has tested the limits of human technology.”
This is a miserable and dishonest attempt to place the disaster outside of any direct responsibility on the part of BP. The issue is not the supposed limits of human technology, but the fact that BP had no plan in place to deal with a blowout.
Obama proceeded to tout his desultory and incompetent response to the spill, stating, “As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.”
Where did the figure of 90 percent containment come from? From BP!
Obama presented the claims of the company, including full stoppage of the leak by late summer, as though they were to be trusted. This is after BP has given incorrect and false information from day one of the disaster—information which Obama and his subordinates have uncritically accepted and passed on to the public.
Obama was silent on BP’s record of deceit—beginning with its claim after April 20 that there was no oil leak, followed by its fraudulent estimates of 1,000 barrels a day and then 5,000 barrels. Nor did he mention the company’s defiance of the Environmental Protection Agency’s call for it to stop pumping the toxic oil dispersant Corexit into the Gulf. Or its policy of blocking the media from gaining access to polluted beaches and marshlands.
As his speech made clear, the administration will continue to disseminate BP’s lies.
“But make no mistake,” Obama said, “We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got and for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.”
These are generalities that one could drive a truck through. This is a disaster whose total costs in economic and environmental destruction rise to the hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars. But Obama was careful to give no figures for the cost of the oil blowout to date, the projected losses to the tourism and fishing industries, the hundreds of thousands of jobs wiped out—rendering his pledge to “make BP pay” and “do whatever’s necessary” empty and without any credibility.
“Because of our efforts,” Obama boasted, “millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming and other collection methods. Over five-and-a-half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil.”
This hyping of what is universally seen as an incompetent, disorganized and wholly inadequate response by the government and BP is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. The very morning of Obama’s speech, the New York Times published a lengthy front-page article under the headline: “Efforts to Repel Gulf Spill Are Described as Chaotic.”
Obama went on to assure the victims of the Gulf spill, “As the cleanup continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need… But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response is, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That’s why the second thing we’re focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.”
Again, the vaguest of generalities, which are belied by the refusal of the government to allocate to date anything near the needed resources or take any action that challenges BP’s property and profits. To seriously approach the “recovery and restoration” of the Gulf Coast would require the seizure of BP’s assets and the nationalization of the oil industry under the democratic control of the working population.
“Tomorrow,” Obama declared, “I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of the company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.”
Again—no numbers! “Whatever resources are required” is a generality that can be twisted to suit the needs of whoever is calling the shots, and despite Obama’s talk of an “independent third party” to administer a compensation fund, those setting policy will be BP, the oil industry as a whole, and Wall Street.
Likewise the phrase “all legitimate claims.” Who is to determine which claims are legitimate? This is a formula for denying adequate compensation to tens of thousands of workers whose jobs are being wiped out by the Gulf disaster.
“The third part of our response plan,” Obama continued, “is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe—that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions taken.
“That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why… And so I’ve established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place.”
Obama’s promise to “ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again” lacks any credibility. As does his pose of bewilderment as to the causes of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
By now a mountain of facts have emerged proving that the cause of the explosion was the company’s disregard for safety, driven by its drive for profit. And it is well established that the government, including under Obama, facilitated this by allowing the company to regulate itself.
Given the servile defense of corporate profiteering by the administration, both political parties and all branches and levels of the government, there is no doubt that the conditions for further disasters in the future will continue to prevail.
Indeed, the real mandate of the National Commission (which is co-chaired by a board member of Conoco-Phillips), as indicated previously by Obama himself is to quickly come up with a proposal for token safety improvements so as to resume deep-water drilling in the Gulf and elsewhere.
Obama repeated his mantra of “coming together” as a nation—“workers and entrepreneurs, scientists and citizens, the public and private sectors.” In other words, mounting no popular opposition to the corporate criminals and holding none of them accountable for their crimes.
In a final insult to the intelligence of the American people, he dragged in God at the end of his remarks, declaring that “we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day.”
Obama’s performance was the speech of an individual and a government that are under the thumb of BP and the corporate-financial elite as a whole. It reeked of servility and cowardice before big business and contempt for the public.
It made clear that nothing will be done to compensate the vast majority of workers and small businessmen whose jobs and livelihoods are being wiped out by the Gulf spill.
The speech was part of a three-day public relations campaign, including a two-day tour of the Gulf and Wednesday’s White House meeting with BP’s chairman and CEO, designed to cover up the preparations for a filthy deal with BP. That deal will likely include a temporary delay by BP in paying out billions in shareholder dividends and the setting up of an escrow fund that will limit the company’s liabilities to a small fraction of the real cost of the disaster for which it is responsible.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

It is not a good thing when a gang leader responsible for many murders is somehow transformed into a savior. Yet that is exactly what happened with Christopher "Dudus" Coke in Jamaica. The poor people, especially those living in the Tivoli Gardens, had come to see him as a protector and provider. It isn't hard to I understand how it came to be. It is sad commentary on Jamaica, the US and beyond.

When police in Jamaica launched a bloody assault in May on poor neighbourhoods in the country’s capital city, news outlets in Canada responded with an ignorance and insensitivity that is all too common in their coverage of the Caribbean islands. As with Haiti, Jamaica is portrayed as incomprehensibly violent and not quite civilized.

Canada’s national broadcaster aired a 20-minute story1 on its morning radio newsmagazine, The Current, on May 28. Neither the host nor the two guests she interviewed sounded the slightest concern when she explained in her introduction that 73 people had been killed to date by the police assault. In fact, both guests welcomed the police action. “It was long overdue,” they chimed. “Criminal gangs in Jamaica have become too powerful.”

Astonishingly, one of the guests, Philip Mascoll, a former reporter for the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest distribution daily newspaper, said that Canadians should prepare for similar police action in poor housing projects in Toronto!

He prefaced his comment by saying, “People are going to hate me for saying this, but….” If the program host was fazed, she didn’t indicate.

Gangs and government in Jamaica

Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director of Jamaicans for Justice2, has a different, highly critical view of the police action. In a May 28 interview from Kingston aired on Democracy Now!, she told hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez that for decades the Jamaican police have been a force outside the law that operates with “complete and total impunity.”

Last year, Gomes said, police killed an estimated 250 people. In the past decade, not a single officer has been charged with the deaths of any of the several thousand citizens who have died at police hands.

Jamaican writer and social critic Annie Paul wrote to Britain’s Channel 4 News on May 26:

“The situation in Jamaica is very complex. There are no clear good guys and bad guys here or elsewhere for that matter. No ‘evil empire’ that can easily be targeted and dismantled because the very governance system of the country has for decades been sharing power, so to speak, with dons or leaders such as Dudus [alias of Christopher Coke].

“Clearly the problem arose because the formal governance system, inherited from the British, left large segments of the poor literally unrepresented and voiceless before and after independence.

“The failure to include or extend the state’s protection and support to all segments of the population created space for alternate leaders to spring up because the excluded still needed security, justice systems, jobs among other things.

“This void was filled by so-called community leaders or godfather figures who used any means necessary to provide these basic necessities for the people in their respective neighbourhoods. It takes cash to care, as a popular political slogan goes, and it was inevitable that such leaders would turn to drugs and arms running, and other illicit sources of income to support their followers in the absence of any legal methods of doing so.”

Rise of post-independence radical action in Jamaica

Much of the influence of criminal gangs today dates back to the wave of political violence unleashed upon the country following the election of Prime Minister Michael Manley in 1972. He headed the People’s National Party, a social democratic party that sought modest reforms to ease the crushing poverty from which the majority of the population suffers.

Jamaica’s ruling elite and foreign backers waged a violent and debilitating assault on Manley’s government and party to prevent it from implementing reforms, combining paramilitary assaults on neighbourhoods supporting the PNP with sabotage of the country’s economy. Hundreds of Manley supporters perished and Jamaica’s economy was seriously crippled. It contracted by 25 percent from 1972 to 1980. Eventually, Manley’s government lost the national election of 1980.

The right-wing Jamaica Labour Party that replaced Manley is the very one that is in power today and that launched the murderous “anti-gang” assault in May . It is associated with criminal gangs that grew out of the paramilitary squads created to bring down the PNP government. David Rowe, a University of Miami adjunct professor and lawyer who specialises in Jamaican law, told the UK Independent that the Labour Party government and the gangs have an “almost symbiotic relationship”.

The memory and fear of the politically violent years of the 1970’s and 1980’s has been a considerable barrier to Jamaica embarking upon another experiment of socially progressive government. Manley and the PNP were elected again in 1989, but the party had by then abandoned any plans for radical social reform. Its rule from 1989 to 1992 proved a great disappointment to its supporters.

The rise of the PNP was part of a wave of social radicalism that swept across Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1960’s and 70’s, inspired by the anti-colonial and national liberation struggles in Africa and Asia, including the looming defeat of U.S. imperialism in Vietnam and the revolutionary trail blazed by Cuba beginning in 1959.

An important beachhead of the wave of radicalism was a social revolution in Chile spurred on by the election of Salvador Allende to the presidency in 1970. The bloody overthrow of Allende in 1973 by a military coup backed by the United States was a huge setback to social revolution in the region, but new victories were scored in 1979 with the coming to power of revolutionary movements in Nicaragua and the island of Grenada. These victories lent an added urgency to the U.S.-led effort to unseat Manley and the PNP.

Self-defense is not gang violence

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, self-defense initiatives were taken by poor and PNP-supporting communities, first against the violent campaign to overthrow Manley, then against the deepening impoverishment of most working people that followed the 1980 election.

The government of Edward Seaga (popularly nicknamed “CIAga” for his close ties to successive U.S. administrations) that followed Manley implemented one of the first national programs of structural adjustment in an underdeveloped country, policies that are today termed neoliberalism.

The imperialist-imposed “adjustments” in Jamaica consisted of relaxing conditions on foreign investment and industry; opening markets to the import of cheaper, typically heavily-subsidized, food products and other goods and services; dismantling of public enterprises and services; and an accompanying drastic reduction in the living standards of the majority of the population. Not coincidentally, this is also the period when the trade and transit of illegal drugs first gained a strong foothold in Jamaica.

The community organizations and popular self-defense committees that had arisen in poor neighbourhoods in the face of the assault on the Manley government, and the new ones that arose post-1980, were obliged to assume responsibilities for social and other community services as these were progressively abandoned by the Labour Party government and its foreign backers.

The gangs that settled into a comfortable association with the Labour Party government also assumed certain measures of social role in poor neighbourhoods as part of the price of gaining territory and foot soldiers for their new-found, lucrative criminal dealings. Furthermore, with the political retreat of the PNP leaders from a radical social program, the distinction between community organizations of political/social origin and those of anti-social origin became blurred over time.

Jamaica and Haiti

There are a lot of parallels to be drawn with the recent history of Haiti. There, mainstream media presents a superficial image of near-incomprehensible gang violence running rampant in poor neighbourhoods. This has been the one, overriding theme of news coverage by Canada’s national broadcaster and other corporate media ever since the election in the year 2000 of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Yet, social violence in Haiti has come almost exclusively from the country’s elite, its paramilitary forces, and their foreign backers in Washington, Ottawa and Paris.

In his excellent 2008 book, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment, author Peter Hallward documents the violence that descended on Haiti following the 2000 election and was then intensified following the overthrow of Aristide in 2004. He draws a sharp distinction between the violent, paramilitary gangs that attacked the government and its supporters, on the one hand, and the organizations of self defense that arose in response, on the other.

Several political activists explained to Hallward, “In Haiti, as a rule, when you defend the interest of the people you are treated as a criminal, whether your name is Dessalines, Peralte or Wilme.” The latter was a community activist who was assassinated in July 2005 by UN soldiers; the former were two of Haiti’s historic anti-slavery and anti-colonial leaders.

The peoples of Jamaica and Haiti share a profound history. Their ancestors fought long and hard against the slave empires of the Americas, at times seeking alliances between each other. Haiti’s revolt against Spain, Britain and France was astonishingly successful. It wrote one of the most inspiring chapters in modern human history. Jamaica’s was not; the country did not gain independence from Britain until 1962.

Both countries have faced relentless, big power intervention in their internal affairs to prevent socially progressive government from gaining a foothold and expanding. Both are still waiting for a semblance of economic justice and independence.

From the Jamaican and Haitian experience, one sees that gang phenomena receive varied treatment from foreign powers and their media. Criminal gangs are tolerated so long as they abide their place and do not embarrass or encroach upon the business world of their sponsors. Sometimes, as in Jamaica, they must be curbed when the U.S. master requires a publicity show for its phony war on drugs.

Self defense efforts that arise when poor people and neighbourhoods are obliged to defend themselves against institutional violence are, however, never tolerated. What the CBC and others condemn as gang violence is in many cases the desperate effort of some of the poorest and most oppressed people in the world to protect themselves against the real perpetrators of violence, the imperial overlords of their countries.

Roger Annis is a member of the Canada Haiti Action Network in Vancouver BC. He can be reached at rogerannis@hotmail.com.

"The Tirkel Commission`s terms of reference do not include looking into the decision-making process which led to bloodshed on the high seas, to the killing of nine people whose purpose had been to reach Gaza rather than clash with Israeli soldiers, to blackening Israel`s image throughout the world and to the complete shattering of the alliance with Turkey...". Some commission of investigation.

Even if it wants to, the Tirkel Commission can't probe the real issues and the international friends of Dore Gold won’t bite. Gush Shalom prepares appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Gush Shalom movement intends to petition the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, challenging the validity of the Netanyahu Government's decision to establish the Tirkel Commission which is supposed to probe the lethal raid on the Gaza Flotilla two weeks ago. The commission's terms of reference exclude in advance all the main points which should be investigated.
It is no coincidence that the government refrained from taking the judicial highway which Israeli law makes available for exactly such cases: appointing a truly independent Commission of Inquiry whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court and which is free of governmental interference. Such a commission may have uncovered facts, or come to conclusions, which would have proven uncomfortable to the government. Such a danger does not exist with the tame commission with which Netanyahu and his ministers came up.
The Tirkel Commission's terms of reference do not include looking into the decision-making process which led to bloodshed on the high seas, to the killing of nine people whose purpose had been to reach Gaza rather than clash with Israeli soldiers, to blackening Israel's image throughout the world and to the complete shattering of the alliance with Turkey which had been a cornerstone of Israeli foreign policy since the days of Ben Gurion. It is guaranteed in advance that those responsible for all this will not be touched, since the commission is not at all empowered to look into their doings.
Nor will the commission be able to look seriously into what actually happened on board the boats during these fateful moments. The commission is specifically and explicitly excluded from calling any soldier or officer to testify. It must place a blind trust in the army's own investigation of its own doings, which is carried on secretly and whose pre-selected results will be presented to the commission. And it is highly unlikely that the commission would hear and seriously consider the eye-witness testimonies of the boat's Turkish, European and American passengers, whom the State of Israel already branded as "terrorists".
It is clear in advance that the Tirkel Commission would not conduct the investigation which needs to be undertaken. The commission was established primarily as a desperate attempt to placate international public opinion, but it is very difficult to believe that this goal would be achieved, or that a report clearing the government of Israel from all blame and fault would gain much credibility in the world.
To get a semblance of international respectability, two international observers were attached to the commission. It should be noted that one of them - David Trimble, Protestant Unionist leader from North Ireland – expressed his allegiance just two weeks ago by joining a "Friends of Israel" group established by Netanyahu loyalist Dore Gold. In addition, Trimble is a veteran member of the Henry Jackson Society, an international organization linked with the American "neo conservative" circles and which advocates the "spreading of democracy" by way of military incursions and invasions. At Trimble's side, this society's membership includes such people as Richard Perle, who under the Bush Administration was among the main initiators of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as well as William Kristol who is the main neo-conservative ideologue.
In short, it is unlikely that the "kosher certificate" provided by such "international observers" to the commission would greatly enhance the credibility given to its conclusions.
Contact: Uri Avnery 0505-306440 or Adam Keller 054-2340749

Monday, June 14, 2010

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument in the landmark human rights case Bowoto v. Chevron, which charges Chevron Corporation with complicity in brutal attacks against nonviolent demonstrators in Nigeria who protested the company's environmental destruction and economic disruption in their communities.

SAN FRANCISCO, June 14 (Reuters) - An appeal of a major case brought by Nigerians against Chevron Corp (CVX.N: Quote) hinges on where the burden of proof lies: with forces that landed on an occupied oil platform or the occupiers harmed by them.

In late 2008, a jury in federal court cleared the company of liability arising from the clash a decade earlier between Nigerian state forces and protesters on Chevron's Parabe oil platform, 9 miles (14 km) off Nigeria's coast.

Theresa Traber, representing the villagers who brought the case against the U.S. oil company, argued before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that the federal trial court erred by putting the burden of proof on the plaintiffs.

Lawyers for the villagers said Judge Susan Illston set the bar too high in requiring the plaintiffs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Nigerian soldiers acted improperly.

The occupation of Parabe, by about 100 local villagers who were protesting environmental damage and demanding compensation and jobs, ended in a violent clash in May 1998.

Traber said it should be the defense -- including Chevron since it fed and housed the soldiers -- that should demonstrate the troops acted reasonably when firing on the protesters.

But Craig Stewart, representing Chevron, argued it was a "police" action that broke up the three-day occupation, so it was up to the other side to show "excessive force" was used.

"The burden rests on plaintiffs in that case," he told the court in San Francisco.

The lawsuit, brought by injured protester Larry Bowoto, was watched closely by multinational companies facing similar challenges in resource-rich countries.

The case was brought against San Ramon, California-based Chevron under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a law that dates back to 1789 and allows foreigners to sue over human rights abuses committed by or on behalf of U.S. organizations.

A key decision a decade earlier found another California oil company, Unocal Corp, could be sued in a U.S. court for its alleged role in human rights abuses in Myanmar. Unocal settled in 2005, just weeks before agreeing to be bought by Chevron.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L: Quote) faced a similar trial in New York just over a year ago on charges of human rights violations and racketeering in Nigeria, but Shell then settled and agreed to pay $15.5 million to the victims, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. [ID:nL91002110]

Chevron said the five-week case in late 2008 had given the Bowoto plaintiffs a "full and fair opportunity" to try their case. "We are confident in the strength of our arguments and the integrity of the jury's decision," it said in a statement.

The Vancouver Police Department says its hate-crime investigator is looking into an apparent gay bashing over the weekend, which the victims are blaming on an Ultimate Fighting Championship event.

But Const. Lindsey Houghton said there's no evidence that's the case.

David Holtzman and Peter Regier say they were taunted with homophobic slurs and repeatedly punched outside their downtown Vancouver apartment on Saturday.

The couple believes the attackers were coming from the UFC mixed martial arts event at GM Place.

Police are investigating the incident but so far no arrests have been made. The suspects are described as Indo-Canadian men in their 20s who were both wearing jeans and T-shirts.

After the mixed martial arts event finished, Vancouver police said it went off without any major problems.

But Holtzman and Regier live on Keefer Street just a few blocks from GM Place and believe they were attacked by two men who were drinking at the event.

The couple was out Saturday evening, but when they came home around 10:45 p.m. PT, they found two men near their front door — one drinking and the other urinating on the wall.

Regier told CBC News he and Holtzman asked them not to.

"I didn't think it was unreasonable for us to object and say, 'Hey guys this is our home. We live here. Please don't pee on our home,'" said Regier.

That's when the two men attacked them, the couple said.

"I just went down and protected myself, and I got hit in the back of the head about 50 times," said Holtzman.

Both suffered scratches, cuts and concussions, and one of them had to be taken to hospital for treatment. The pair told CBC News they believe the attack was a hate crime.

"They started saying all kinds of homophobic slurs," said Regier.

City responsible for UFC event

Regier and Holtzman said the city is partly to blame for holding violent events such as the UFC in the neighbourhood.

"You know, for us, it raises some larger concerns about, I guess for the city. I had no opinion about UFC coming to Vancouver originally … but you know, look at what happened to us steps away from where the fight went down, we're assaulted, just steps away," said Regier.

Holtzman said, unlike the recent crowds downtown for the Olympics, the UFC event created a different mood on the street.

"UFC, like fighting, is about fighting and it's about testosterone…. When you see someone like that, what are you going to do? You're going to react like in a fighting mode. I mean it promotes fighting. That's what it's about," said Holtzman.

"I think the city has to give a good think about UFC, and I am going to obviously be an opponent to this because of what happened to me," he said.